The revision court has jurisdiction to interfere with the trial court's findings on issues of law and admitted facts, but it cannot reappraise the evidence and substitute its own findings on questions of fact.

R.H. Zaidi

1. IN the aforesaid two petitions the subject matter of dispute and the parties are the same. They were, therefore, connected and as desired by the learned counsel for the parties were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. WRIT Petition No. 17378 of 1992 arose out of proceedings in S.C. Suit No. 1039 of 1982, while the other WRIT Petition No. 19871 of 1996 arose out of proceedings under Section 16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for short the Act.

The dispute relates to building No. 852/53-B, Dal Mandi, Naya Cantt, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Building in Dispute). Late Sri Harbansh Singh Kohli, the father of the petitioner was the tenant in the building in dispute which was being used for the business purposes. He used to carry on the business in the name and style 'Sri Guru Nanak Agency'. On his death, the petitioner came into occupation of the same. The suit was filed by the respondent No. 2, for ejectment and recovery of rent on the grounds of default, sub-letting and change of user of the building in question. It was pleaded that inspite of notice of demand and termination of tenancy being served upon the petitioner on 6.7.1982, the amount of arrears of rent was not paid nor the building was vacated, that the building in question was sublet to Sri Yogendra Nath Dikshit illegally for the purpose of his residence and thus the user of the building was changed without permission of the landlord.

3. THE suit was contested by the petitioner who had pleaded that Sri Yogendra Nath Dikshit was his servant and not sub-tenant, on the death of Sri Harbansh Singh Kohli, he along with other heirs and legal representatives inherited the tenancy rights, that other heirs were not impleaded in the suit, that no rent was due against him and the user of the but ding was not changed. THE suit was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

4. THE trial court framed as many as five issues and while dealing with Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 it was held that rent upto December, 1983 was paid by the petitioner and no rent was due against him, on the date of service of notice. THE petitioner was also held entitled to the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. Notice of demand and termination of tenancy was also held to be illegal as the same was not served upon all co-tenants. It was also held that Sri Yogendra Nath Dikshit was only an employee and not a sub-tenant and that the user of the building was also not changed. Having recorded the said findings the trial court decreed the suit for recovery of rent only. THE relief for ejectment of the petitioner from the building in question was refused by the trial court by its judgment and decree dated 26.5.1990.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the respondent No. 2 preferred a revision. The revisional court reversed the findings recorded by the trial court. It was held that the notice of termination of tenancy, served upon the petitioner, was valid and the suit filed against him for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent was maintainable. It was further held that the building in question was sub-let by the petitioner to Sri Yogendra Nath Dixit and the user of the same was also changed. However, the finding on the issue of default recorded by the trial court was affirmed. Having recorded the aforesaid findings, the revision was allowed and the suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent was decreed. Petitioner, challenging the validity of the judgment and order passed by the court below filed the present petition.

5. THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sri Yogendra Nath Dikshit was simply a servant of the petitioner and not the sub-tenant. There was no evidence on the record to show that any rent or any other consideration is being paid by Sri Yogendra Nath Dikshit for the occupation of the building to the petitioner, the court below has also